strike on iraq

Sadam is no dummy. But he sure as hell is evil.

Also, stuff like "china will nuke us" and the war will cost $200 Billion, etc. is no different than the crap that was tossed around before the first Gulf War. America was supposed to lose tens of thousands of soldiers in "the mother of all battles". It was crap then and it is crap now.
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
I am saying my country is more right than its enemies.
More...

It is so nice to know that being an American, my shit doesn't stink as bad as my enemies shit.

Sometimes we are right, sometimes wrong. Anyone who thinks that America is right just because we take a stand on a position and some other country takes a different position is necessarily wrong is not thinking through the issues.

While "might" does make right, it doesn't make the "right" that is produced by might moral....Or do you see that slavery was right because of the might that sold and chained blacks for hundreds of years?

Right should be right, even if the tables were turned, and we were the weaker country and Iraq had the power, and they wanted to control our production of weapons of mass destruction---just because they had the "might" to do so.
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
Sadam is no dummy. But he sure as hell is evil.

Also, stuff like "china will nuke us" and the war will cost $200 Billion, etc. is no different than the crap that was tossed around before the first Gulf War. America was supposed to lose tens of thousands of soldiers in "the mother of all battles". It was crap then and it is crap now.
More...


dotslash do you know how much this war will cost and how long we will occupy the region once we "win"? i seriously hope you don't think this war is being fought in the name of democracy..... it's about putting our puppets in power and controlling the oil. saddam was our buddy even after he supposedly gassed the kurds in the late eighties. (even the pentagon said in 1990 that more than likely it was the iranians) and let's not forget april glaspie's green light to saddam in regards to Kuwait. so far 1.4 million iraqi's (many of them children) have died mainly due to a corrupted water supply and sanctions against water purification equipment. have you ever seen these deformed and dying children? do you not understand that this is what creates future terrorist????
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
Also, stuff like "china will nuke us" and the war will cost $200 Billion, etc. is no different than the crap that was tossed around before the first Gulf War.
More...

i'm sorry dotslash, what were you saying about tossing crap???

Iraq attack could cost $200 billion

Bush economic czar’s estimate much higher than Pentagon’s

By Bob Davis
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 — President Bush’s chief economic adviser estimates that the U.S. may have to spend between $100 billion and $200 billion to wage a war in Iraq, but doubts that the hostilities would push the nation into recession or a sustained period of inflation.
 
If the situation were flipped around, and I was living in a dinky country with a dictator and tough economic conditions, I would either join the opposition party or try to get the heck out of that country. I don't feel any sympathy for Sadam loyalists.

If you think that Sadam occupies the moral high ground here, then we have a completely different system of values. I don't think that you really believe what you are saying.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq are in fact U.N. sanctions, and they didn't create the terrorists. The Terrorists have really been around since the creation of Israel. The sanctions were an attempt at causing change through peacefull means, and they failed. In retrospect it would have been better for the people of Iraq if we had just invaded the whole country in the first Gulf war instead of leaving them to languish in misery.
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
If you think that Sadam occupies the moral high ground here, then we have a completely different system of values. I don't think that you really believe what you are saying.
More...

are you a complete IDIOT???????? i am not sticking up for saddam!!!! please go back thru my posts and try to find one that supports him personally. my first concern is for american lives!!!! just because enough people like you support this upcoming genocide doesn't mean i am on the "dark" side. if going after evil leaders was the main reason for going to war then we would be quite busy taking out many past and present leaders.

so after we take out Saddam, do you think terrorist are going to be MORE likely or LESS likely to strike the US internally???
 
Originally posted by dotslashfuture
RS7, I don't think that a person is automatically unpatriotic because they might be a democrat. Also I am not saying my country right or wrong, I am saying my country is more right than its enemies. You apparently think differently, and I don't think you have any factual basis for that. If I really believed that america was evil I wouldn't live here. You hate Bush, while I don't think he has done a single thing wrong since he became president, and I really didn't think much of him before now. If you think I sound like archie bunker, well then I'm just a lot more conservative than you are and that's ok with me.

Also this little flip around by Sadam shows that the pressure is getting to him. Sadam understands force, it is what he lives by. So far the strategy of the Bush administration is working.
More...

You do not think a person is unpatriotic if they are a Democrat. You just think they have "twisted minds". OK, that is pretty open minded of you. So let's drop that subject. You have made yourself quite clear:confused:

First off, I never said that I "hate Bush". What I said was that he was "not qualified" and that I did not think he was the right guy in the right place at the right time. YOU were the one that used the word "HATE"....you "hate Clinton" because he "committed perjury". OK, he lied about sex. Probably the first man to do that.

Now you think Bush has not done a "single thing wrong since he became president". Have you thought about his policies? Let's put aside the war on terror for just one moment. What has he accomplished as president? What has he done RIGHT? And of course, how do you address my original reference to him...How is he qualified to be president?? How is the economy doing?

You think Cheney is a great man. Do you have any concerns about his ties to Haliburton, and how Haliburton was run with him at the helm and what it did to it's shareholders and employees (re: pension fund). How about Cheney's hand picked secretary of the Army? Thomas White? Do you know ANYTHING about this man and his involvement with ENRON?

Now if you really believed America was evil, you wouldn't live here. Where would you live? Would you just leave? Or would you participate in an effort to bring about the necessary changes to make America what it should be? Your country, your citizenship, is not some motel you stay at until the maid forgets to change your sheets, and then you check out and go to another place. It is the duty of our citizens to keep America on track. We have a constitution. We are supposed to uphold it. (Unless you are a President with a grudge? Then you can circumvent it and declare war?).

As for Saddam's "flip", well let's all hope and pray he is for real. This is not a partisan issue. No right thinking person wants war, and no right thinking person would not hope for a complete and accurate arms inspection in Iraq. And a clean result.

Peace, and may defense stocks go down and tech stocks go up!

:)Rs7
 
Originally posted by Bryan Roberts

so after we take out Saddam, do you think terrorist are going to be MORE likely or LESS likely to strike the US internally???
More...

Bryan and I have disagreed on several issue in the past. But these issues were of subjects that involved philosophical differences in regards to subjects that could be dabated with merit on both sides.

Here, however, we are in complete agreement. This is not a rhetorical question. This is a very real and dangerous concept. What are the motivations and the justifications (in their minds) of the terrorists that threaten our safety and our way of life.

Why add fuel to their fire if we can avoid it?

Dotslash....time to slow down and think things through. You may think that the "ends justify the means". But what exactly are the possible "ends"???

Peace,
Rs7
 
Originally posted by OPTIONAL777


I am neither for or against Bush, Gore, Clinton, Bush Sr.

I am for America, freedom of speech, the democratic process, and transparency of our government.

If an open debate is held, with all the data brought out, and congress decides to support the plan put forth by Bush, I will support that.

Here are recent poll results, which tell us a lot about the trends of public opinion and the true wishes of the people based on what we have been told thus far.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

If Bush has an airtight case, why not bring it to Congress?

Since Bush is so certain, why not present enough of that information that brought him to that certainty to rest of us?

He did very little to impress or change the opinon of the rest of the free world with his speech at the UN.
More...

Interesting poll. I did notice that the ONLY category that barely swings position is whether more info is needed before a position should be taken. For me, with the new Iraq position on inspectors, I would ask that you notice this bit of info from your poll data:

"If Iraq agrees to admit the weapons inspectors, but then interferes or does not cooperate with them, in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?"

Favor Oppose No Opinion
81% 17% 2%

9/02

Hey isn't that 2% about the same amount of difference in the polling question on whether or not more info is needed? Hmm, now do we need to wait for them to stop writing their editorials and showing up on all the political shows before we move? 2%, isn't that usually the amount of error statement associated with polling data? You know, the so-called margin for error! Could listening to them actually, be an error? :)
 
Originally posted by canyonman00


Interesting poll. I did notice that the ONLY category that barely swings position is whether more info is needed before a position should be taken. For me, with the new Iraq position on inspectors, I would ask that you notice this bit of info from your poll data:

"If Iraq agrees to admit the weapons inspectors, but then interferes or does not cooperate with them, in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?"

Favor Oppose No Opinion
81% 17% 2%

9/02

Hey isn't that 2% about the same amount of difference in the polling question on whether or not more info is needed? Hmm, now do we need to wait for them to stop writing their editorials and showing up on all the political shows before we move? 2%, isn't that usually the amount of error statement associated with polling data? You know, the so-called margin for error! Could listening to them actually, be an error? :)
More...

My guess is that the people want Bush to set limits that are reasonable, and if those limits are not met, then people will support his action and use of military force. I suspect the international commmunity would also support this kind of action.

We can all look to what wasn't done on Clinton's watch, but that is in the past now.

My guess is that people want the United States to practice what we preach.....at least the appearance of that.

We preach law, tolerance, fairness, etc.

So why give Iraq another chance? Why not? What is the rush?

I know, some say the rush is that weapons of mass destruction etc., but this cannot be new info to the intelligence community.

I don't recall Bush making Iraq and removal of Hussein a campaign issue. Not much talk of terrorism back in 2000 election times.

So now, we have 911, and we are supposed to believe that the danger has been there for over a year and half under Bush's watch, but only now he is ready to act?

Please....

I also think the people of this country are sick and tired of partisan politics, and just want to see unified action by all branches of the government.

If it take some time to get everyone on board, if the facts warrant a military solution......and we have unity here at home and support from the UN, I think you will find the American people behind that action.

The memory of Vietnam has not been forgotten, a time when a President pushed a war without listening to what the people were saying. So the hangover of that War haunts us to this day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top